Talk:Neanderthal genome project

Calculation?

Can someone explain the calculation used to date the divergance? In other words how do ancient "human" mitocondria (from the neanderthal period) differ from neanderthals? That is a very different question than applying a contemporanious species metric to aincent "humans" with those of today. I find it odd that neandertals are considered non human when "Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago".[1]

Simialrly odd is this which shows two species of modern human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.175.181 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Contamination?

The article does not explain how genes of anatomically modern humans could "contaminate" Neanderthal genes. How do I have to imagine this? Did Neanderthalers know how to transplant AMS tissues in their femurs, or did they simply eat them for being "contaminated"? Or maybe it was with Homo Sapiens genes traveling through groundwater? Or air contamination from the remains of incinerated Humans by some prehistoric and extinct aircraft? Really, here the lobby against the whole idea of modern humans descending from Neanderthalers has me seriously puzzled. Rokus01 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

sigh, read the article. We are to understand the contamination took place in the laboratory, not in the Paleolithic. There is no "lobby", there is simply no evidence of crossbreeding, although people are frantically looking for it. dab (��) 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not make clear why the contamination was specifically human and not of a cockroach. Also, I don't think the article represents the investigation in a balanced way since this contamination-thing is just an allegation of opponents to the project results. To be clear: the only way to accept such a contamination is by adhering to the assumption the results have been tampered with. Not an encyclopedic thing to do. Rokus01 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Humans are the ones doing the labwork, not cockroaches. Although several practices are in place to protect samples (gloves, laminar/biohaz cabinets, use of ethanol, protected reagents, maybe even hairnets) it is still not unheard of for molecular biologists to contaminate their own samples with their own DNA (hair, skin flakes etc.). As the techniques used only require small amounts of DNA, even the smallest contamination from a laboratory worker can scuffle results, especially when dealing with human or almost-human DNA.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So far this scenario is just unconfirmed speculation. Another possibility is human genes being "contaminated" with neanderthal genes and some don't want to accept. Rokus01 (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please rephrase your scenario. It does not make sense. I do not think you understanding the use of contamination in this context.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the contamination issue is due to a devilish dilemma: either the degradation of fossilized Neanderthal genes is taken for granted and the investigation focus on degraded DNA fragments of small length only, inherently different from not degraded modern DNA; OR the degradation of fossilized Neanderthal genes is not taken for granted and the subsequent indications of similarity to modern DNA are at risk of being discarded as "contaminated" by way of circular reasoning. I take the necessity of assuming two errors in order to phase out the differences in favor of the results using degraded DNA, highly suggestive to the credibility of just the opposite. Rokus01 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

look, it just means that the task is very difficult. Until recently, nobody thought it was even possible. Give it time, maybe there will be stable results in due time, it's just too early to tell. I agree with ZayZayEM that you do not seem to understand the problems involved. dab (��) 18:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read about molecular cloning, preferably not from wikipedia, its a fairly poor article. A nice easy textbook like the Genomes series is easy enough for someone with minimal biology background [2]. Please also take a look at other modern dilemnas facing post-modern molecular biology, such as lateral inheritence [3]. --ZayZayEM (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. However, I didn't find here any preliminar hint towards isolating degraded DNA and throwing away all the rest for the only reason that it looks okay. This revolutionary perspective of Wall and Kim would require a completely different textbook.Rokus01 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You must be right this time, since even to me it is hard to accept the evolution towards anatomically modern humans to be such a blatant backlash. Rokus01 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "backlash" you are referring to, but I am glad we seem to be in agreement on something. dab (��) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell some evolved Homo Sapiens will stand up soon to question the exclusive use of degraded DNA, probably meant to reconstruct a degraded genome in the infamous tradition of Marcelin Boules' La Chapelle-aux-Saints man. Rokus01 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus, stop it, there is no conspiracy going on here. DNA from fossil bones is contaminated with literally everything, mostly bacteria, sometimes also modern human DNA (e.g. from the bone being handled in the museum it came from). All this DNA is extracted, sequenced and compared to databases of known DNA. The stuff that looks similar to humans is either Neanderthal or human contamination and these two cannot easily be distinguished. This fraction, the DNA from the fossil that looks almost human, just happens to be rather short fragments and degraded. The Green et. al. data also contains a fraction of human looking data that is longer and less degraded; this fraction is not present in the Noonan et. al. data. This stuff has not been discarded, and if it is contamination (yes, clean rooms are employed, yet this may not be sufficient), it explains the different results between the two groups, as Kim and Wall found out. If you want the final word on this, you'll have to wait for more publications, since this is very much work in progress. (Yes, I do have some insight into one of the projects.) 88.74.165.38 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"This fraction, the DNA from the fossil that looks almost human, just happens to be rather short fragments and degraded." How do you know? A poor assumption to investigate only degraded DNA just because you can't imagine some part did not degrade. It seems to have escaped you that Noonan et al actively concentrated on degraded DNA. They should have practiced first on the bones of some species that we know for sure of it didn't extinct. Rokus01 (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I know that the DNA is degraded? Well, duh, because the sequencing machine says so. (Sequencing devices now speak?) How do I know that all DNA is completely degraded? I don't. That's the reason why the long and apparently well conserved fragments are *not* discarded (neither by Green et.al. nor by Noonan et.al.). It just happens that those fragments are nearly absent from samples that appear free from contamination. The focus is on degraded DNA because that's all there is, which you seem to ignore persistently because of your strange preconceptions. If you want to know how contamination is assessed, read the papers (those by Green, Noonan and Wall). And if you must know, the techniques were developed on fossil Mammoths and Cave Bears. They too have degraded DNA showing the same patterns. 88.75.229.164 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean by "They should have practiced first on the bones of some species that we know for sure of it didn't extinct" but if you think the genome of 100k year old humans or some other species is the same then as it is now, you're seriously mistaken. In other words, extinct or not, we have no way of knowing what the genome 'should' be like Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I know that all DNA is completely degraded? I don't. That's the reason why the long and apparently well conserved fragments are *not* discarded (neither by Green et.al. nor by Noonan et.al.)

Quote:"The key assumption of Noonan et al. is the 38,000 years of fossilisation that the Neanderthal DNA suffered should have the genome analysis focus on ancient DNA fragments of about 50 to 70 base pairs in length."

Please, give me a break.Rokus01 (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete this article?

This article does not do any effort to describe the results of the Neanderthal Genome Project and gives WP:UNDUE weight to secondary opinions. Morover, it WP:FORKs information already dealt with in the Neanderthal article. Thus, it basically represents just one point of view, that does not even represent the view of the Neanderthal Genome Project. This is not conform WP:NPOV policy. For this it should be reorganised and rewritten completely, or nominated for deletion. What will it be? Rokus01 (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Rokus, contribute constructively and honestly, or go away. dab (𒁳) 14:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You could contribute constructively and honestly by giving a valid summary of the peer review to make your point. And don't opinionate on people or - worse - by distorting articles towards a certain point of view, since it is your behaviour that is being investigated by RfArb. Rokus01 (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

yes Rokus. The only reason you are still with us is that nobody could be bothered to spend the time compiling an rfar case on you. How about you stay on topic. You just made a WP:POINT deletion request. You are welcome to improve the article, but try to avoid wasting other people's time with pointless filibustering and pathetic pov-pushing. --dab (𒁳) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I do not understand any of Rokus' concerns. As a tertiary resource, wikipedia is supposed to focus on secondary opinion. I think this article needs some heavy cleanup though to be more accessible and understood by a general audience. It also appears to have some serious information gaps, I do not think this is contribution a non-NPOV, but it could certainly improve the article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My concern is the tendency I noticed in a previous version of this article to become a vehicle of claims that ignore the current state of the debate on Cro-Magnon-Neanderthal interbreeding. If secondary opinions are involved, they should be properly sourced and explained. It is certainly against WP:NPOV policy to only refer to one peer review and ignore the various scholarly publications themselves, that are primary sources. I don't mind to take a thorough look at the peer review and make some sense out of it, as soon I can find time and nobody else will. So long, I urge to restrain from single claims that degrade the neutrality of this article. Deletion is certainly an option to articles that WP:FORK from main articles just to promote a certain point of view. This does not mean I don't subscribe to an article that informs in a balanced way on the Neanderthal Genome Project, all the contrary.Rokus01 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I introduced a due description of the two separate publications and of the peer review, and consider the article rewritten and complying to main WP standards now. I figure the rewrite tag could be removed. The expand tag could be removed as well, since in the process the article was expanded on all basic subjects of interest (even though never properly listed at WP:RFE). About the expert tag, all has been properly sourced by accessible references now and can be verified by anybody according to WP:VERIFY, which normally would render the expert tag superfluous. Thanks for your understanding! Rokus01 (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Tags are not your enemy Rokus. I very much appreciate the work you ahve done in rewriting this article. It is very informative. But it is not yet perfect or "good".

The "expand" tag is a tag that really should have no dispute. Any non-feature article can conceivably deserv this tag. It is used for non-stub articles that could have more information added. Particularly for important key topics that may be overlooked by the general wikipedia community. The genome sequencing project of the closest ever hominid ancestor of humans is a pretty important topic, and could definitely have more information added.

Particular specific information I might suggest:

• Specific methods employed - I see "a new sequencing technique" (Green), and a different technique (noonan), and direct sequencing
• Furtehr information on any direct specific gene comparisons. eg. Neanderthal hemoglobin c.f. Human hemoglobin. (Now its probably something a bit more divergent that would yield some nice surprises, say IL-2^[4])
• Responses from the greater community to claims of human-neanderthal cross breeding that are significant and not on the fringe
• Further flesh on non-laboratory (wet or in silico) details - funding, motivation, genome draft availability, concerns and controversy
• More on this "fiery polemic" surrounding the project

The language of the article as I mentioned is very alienating to a general audience, is devoid of contextualising wikilinks, and background information. Phrases like "The group of Green et al used a new sequencing technique that amplifies single molecules for characterization and obtained over a quarter-million unique sequences." means very little to everyday wikipedia readers, while even to a scientist unfamiliar with molecular biology "a quarter-million unique sequences" is devoid of context, and a molecular biologist unfamilar with neanderthal project I would be interested in knowing what specic "new sequencing technique" is meant here.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Now having the article factually accurate, verifiable, neutral in point of view and not omitting any major facets of the topic, it should be stable as well and well on its way to be "good". I agree you are free to improve on the style, coverage and illustrations, though in my opinion the priority of this issues by now does not deserve a work order to your poor wikipedia collegues anymore. Rokus01 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

close review needed

This article may still contain bogus claims and misrepresentations. I just caught an unnoted bogus edit that survived for half a year [5]. The issue here is that Rokus is trying to suggest Neanderthal admixture to Europeans, ultimately to gain a deep time scale to postulate a separate "European race". The Rubin et al. paper suggests a separation of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis some 370,000 years ago, long before there were any "Europeans". The claim of a "modern European-Neanderthal population split" is pure bogus pulled out of thin air. Part of the problem was that we were referencing a Berkeley press release instead of the Science article itself (which I have now linked). Rubin et al. actually find a closer relationship of Neanderthals to Yoruba people than to Europeans or East Asians (the expected mrca date is close to 300 kya if only Yoruba populations are taken into account, and close to 400 kya if only Eurasian populations are taken into account - fig. 5). --dab (𒁳) 16:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The article may be reviewed, but not by you. Ignoring your malicious, personal and baseless remarks "as usual" (you should be banned for this), some remarks on your last edits that should explain why:"

• You don't show to be aware of two different research teams. Be careful to be clear on whose claims you are dealing with.
• You mix up the difference made in the peer review between divergence time and split time. Split time refers to the point when further admixtures can be ruled out.
• You change Noonan et al. into Rubin et al. It is custom to refer to the first author of a published paper. Don't give prevalence to how they refer to their buddies in a magazine
• Wall and Sun compare the two and conclude on the "Green et al." paper: "If true, this would indicate greater similarity between human and Neanderthal than between two extant members of the Hausa population."

Rokus01 (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

the above comments are not addressed to you, Rokus, but are intended to point other editors to the problems you introduce. You know you are indulging in sneaknig in bogus claims into articles, ultimately with a racialist agenda, and you know I can dig up the diffs to back up this assertion, so why don't we just leave it at that. I am simply too lazy to put up with the bureaucracy involved in getting sanctions against you. Regarding your allegations that I am unable to appreciate the issues involved here: do pipe down. It took several weeks before you even understood what was meant by "contamination". I just pointed out an edit where you inserted a glaring mistake, which if not by bad faith can only be explained by your complete ignorance of this topic. I make no assertion which case applies, but both indicate that you should stay well away from this article. This has nothing to do with "malice". I just want our articles free of crypto-racialist bullshit, no hard feelings involved. thanks, dab (𒁳) 10:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel pity for you that you can't find any worse mistake to sustain your hysteric rhetorism. Apparently you indulge so much in your malice to attack personally, that you come up with bogus accusations. Here I quote "The Glaring Mistake" :

This [Noonnan et al.) nuclear DNA study indicates that the common ancestor lived about 706,000 years ago, and that the modern European-Neanderthal population split occurred 330,000 years later.[sourced Berkeley] However, Green et al. calculated a divergence time of 516,000 years ago and don't indicate a split.

The only mistake I can see here is that the population split was an average between European, Asian and Yoruba data, not just European:

Using this approach, the maximum likelihood estimates for the split time of the ancestral human and Neanderthal populations are 440,000 years

(95% CI of 170,000 to 620,000 years) based on the European data, 390,000 years (170,000 to 670,000 years) for East Asians, and 290,000 years

(120,000 to 570,000 years) for Yoruba (...) The average of these estimates, ~370,000 years, is thus a sensible point estimate for the split time.

So, who is the one that makes himself incredible? Without repeating things about the mess you made by your ignorance, I already expressed this making my remarks above. Really, I made a racist mistake? You are completely insane. Rokus01 (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

well, I'll not comment on this beyond pointing out that while I am criticizing your edits and your mistakes (which oddly always go towards supporting a single agenda), you have repeatedly commented on my person ("malice", "insane"). If you are trying to make this personal, you are making a mistake. Since no fruitful debate is possible between us at this point, and I did not seek your input, I do not know why you insist on keep thrusting your insults on me. The very most you can hope to achieve by this is to motivate me to invest more scepticism in your edits. dab (𒁳) 12:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think labeling good faith edits "crypto-racialist bullshit" is pretty personal and insulting. Don't let me laugh, your scepticism had already reached negationist levels of hypercriticism a long time ago. Rokus01 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks

Sorry to walk into this little love fest here. On such a small amount of material this is a huge article. It looks like it needs to be made more concise and encyclopedic. And since there are two papers with two slightly different approaches, why shouldn't the two approaches and the critiques of those approaches be in different sections. There are also papers out on the MCR1 gene and the potential for contamination. It seems there are few studies without evidence of human contamination. The other thing, this is not the USENET or other forum, WP:EQ & WP:TALK, whenever there is substantive hostility people are less likely to improve articles. I would be happy to review the science for this but I have generally come to the same conclusion of most groups, even Paabo admitted there could be contamination.

I would like to make a comment, the two papers were studying two different things, one paper looked at the possibility of a split, the maximum likelihood analysis suggests that 0% of the human genome was contributed by Neandertals, it does not mean exactly no DNA was contributed or that alot was contributed, but by scientific standards the amount that was contributed was between 0 and a few percent. This has been the conclusion for quite some time now. I think everyone should take some perspective here, the defining the last percent is going to be a tough thing to do statistically. Name calling here does not only cheapen the called but cheapens the caller. Talk page guidelines allow for the refactoring of inappropriate comments. The discussion on these pages should be on how to improve the article, not ones ego.PB666 ^yap 01:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I am removing the tag for expansion, the article does not need to be expanded but made more encyclopedic.

PB666 ^yap 02:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Interbreeding

Since I consider myself the outcome of Cro-Magnon-Neanderthal interbreeding, the question whether or not there was a Neanderthal admixture to the gene pool of modern man seems completely irrelevant to me. I assume that a 5% admixture is more or less correct.

The Heterocygote Prothrombinmutation (HEPM) is my case in point. About 5% of the contemporary European population carries this mutation - and I am one of them. To Homo Sapiens Sapiens HEPM is rather a nuisance than a blessing: it enhances the risk of thrombosis after surgery and contributes to adhesion and deformity problems concerning the organs inside the body.

During the life span of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis however, HPEM was very usefull: Since due to his body shape (no waist, no torsion-capacity of the spine) he was unable to throw spears, every chase and kill of a wild animal was a "close combat" matter. Neanderthal hunters regularly sustained a great number of ugly wounds during their actions.

HEPM was their "fast repair kit", accelerating wound healing by enhancing the scab-production of their body. Many of them even had a "turbo repair kit": the Homocygote Prothrombinmutation (HOPM), which worked even faster and more effective.

The advantage of a steady and strong trombin production in order to built up reserves for emergencies turns into a disadvantage, the rarer these emregencies become. Thrombin that is not called for, becomes harmful to one's health. That is why HOPM occurs in less than 0,5% of modern man population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.247.204 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For me personally there is also not a question, i have seen to many 'neanderthal' traits in modern skulls to believe there was none. Yet there is collaborating evidence. It is now known neanderthals could be redhaired, a thing long expected, (i read about it first in the 60s or 70s),the evidence in that is that 'modern' people that mix in between 'races' also tend to promote the prevalence of hair (and eye) colours, otherways there would be hardly any non black haired mixed people, yet there are lots and appearing more and more (interestingly it seems to me there is more genes involved then commonly assumed). one more point is that mdna sequences that are extinct proof little, eg. "Oetzis' mdna is inexistant in modern humans, and it is only 8-10 kya. Nobody poses 8kya old humans are any different from 'modern humans'. Likewise that neanderthal mdna is inexistant nowadays is unsurprising and even predictable up to the point you know there are differences. Personally i think the better match with joruba (it may be a racist bias still) can be explained that way, joruba apparently have a mdna sequence that is not quite common, the match i would think is a coincedence, and only goes to show neanderthal were within the range of sapiens variation. The opposite question can also be asked, then when did the sequences diverge, not improbably that would be before the joruba sequence made a seemingly retrograde turn(1). Seemingly only because it is most plausible the resemblances in it are positive for the survival of the species, with apparent exclusion of the (btw spear weilding) neanderthal specific protagonist elements.(perhaps they didn't throw as well, but they sure seem to have been 'practising', i would need to look into it to be sure they did throw them (as far), but i think it shows from the wounds of their prey they threw with spears and not only thrust with them.;)(1) there are also strong indications both neanderthal and sapiens arrive from the same northwest african area, in that sense both oetzi and nanderthal genes may be better preserved where they came into existence. Indeed africa has the greatest mdna variation 24.132.170.97 (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Racism

Calling these people a separate species is ridiculous. I guarantee there's more than .5 percent difference between individual modern humans' DNA.. or else that stat is completely off. Every humanoid skeleton ever found was obviously human and nothing else. To say otherwise is to be racist to our fellow human beings :( Signed, someone with a sagittal crest and heavy eyebrows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Should I be laughing or face-palming? DodgerOfZion (talk)

Troll -1. Please do not feed. --mav (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well i have the same problem with the discourse as it stands.(person with sagittal crest)24.132.170.97 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I think the picture of the child should be removed, or at least it should be clarified that the reconstruction of the Neanderthal child has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Unless the genome project yields graphical results, I don't think this article needs a lead picture. —Werson (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

With green eyes, no less! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.234.253 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

So far, much of the editing disputes about this article have been missing the main problem with it, which is this:

If this article is going to have a life, its editors should explain basic technical terms such as "admixture" or "sequence" and do more than just provide wikilinks to appropriate articles - or if they think that explaining such terms is beneath them in some way, then they should use them in a context in which the meaning is self-evident. The Intro section is adequate, but the Peer Review section is, from the perspective of a general reader, not good at all. To pick a sentence at random:
"Since this is not the case, the assumption of contamination also would indicate a higher sequencing error rate in the Green et al. data, since sequence errors would look the same as Neanderthal-specific mutations."
Has it occurred to whoever wrote this ugly and impenetrable sentence that people without undergraduate degrees in biology will read this article? I think I have a vague idea what it means, but I am far from confident I could copyedit it without seriously misrepresenting the meaning. The disputes on this talk page have not, I noticed, been about clarity and ease of understanding but about POV, which is the least of your problems. Would somebody who knows something about this subject care to rewrite the whole thing as though it were an encyclopedia article? Lexo (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

well, you have a point, but I suppose we need to get the content proper straight before we can bother with accessability issues. That said, if you can fix both issues at the same time, you are certainly welcome to have a go. --dab (𒁳) 20:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No problems here, when you don't know or have a clue what is 'admixture' why would you read into dna sequencing anyhow.24.132.170.97 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review section

I renamed it to "criticism". Although that's a fairly crappy title, it is far more appropriate than "peer-review". There is a more serious problem though: findings published in Nature and Science are being challenged by a paper from PLoS Genetics, I'm not sure if this is appropriate, since I have no clue about the relative reputability of journals in these fields. I will ask people at WP:RS/N. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The proportionality is fine, I was told. Other than the the concern above (that the section is too technical), this should be okay. Vesal (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

the main problem with this article is, I think, that this is very much an ongoing project with no definite results yet. This should tend to fix itself as time progresses and we get some robust results broken down for a general audience. --dab (𒁳) 20:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture II

Yesterday the article had a pic of a child-Neanderthal, today it's a pic of an adult: are we going through the entire family album? I rather liked the child, it was appealing. 203.129.49.7 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that both of the pictures should be at the top. Esn (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The child's picture was replaced by User:Goodmorningworld, with the following edit summary: "I like this pic much better, just don't trust the far too sapiens looking child Neanderthal. They were DIFFERENT." --BorgQueen (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the new photo at all. It's creepy. What archeological evidence is there that Neanderthals had bright red skin? I agree that the nose on the child photo was too small, but I find that less objectionable than the new photo. Perhaps both could be used, as Esn suggested. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

added annotation to the caption to explain the significant differences between the 2 images, in how they depict neanderthals. meant to clarify the situation for an average reader, not meant to pick a fight. :) does anyone have more info about the second image? i would like to know why the man's face is red; i did a quick scan of the source material & did not find a satisfactory answer... Lx 121 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Both pictures are offtopic this isn't the Neanderthal article, it's the Neanderthal genome project one. If we don't have any images relevant to the project itself, project members, facilities, or graphics on project results, we shouldn't show any pictures. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

with all due respect i have to disagree with you about that. it would be nice to have more visual materials that relate directly to the project, graphs, dna, etc. but as long as the image is scientifically valid (and we don't have more NGP specific material to use), it's appropriate to have a picture of a neanderthal here, as a representation of the subject under discussion. the article is already very technical in some places, & the photo makes it more user friendly. for the average reader, not well versed in the subject, it's useful. look at all the news articles & video reports on the topic, most of them have some representation of what a neanderthal looks like; of better or worse quality. i would be willing to have a representation of dna on the page too, or other relevant items; i admit an image of actual Neanderthal dna would be best ;) the thing i consider unfortunate is that we seem to be stuck with 2 different images, where one would suffice. personally i favour the child pic for a number of reason both subjective & objective, but i'm willing to accept having both, as representing different views on Neanderthal appearance. compromise is better than war here. perhaps when they actually clone a neanderthal, that will settle the matter; lol Lx 121 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment the second image caption (of the man) which is the one currently used on the main page says it was based on older techniques and ideas which would imply it's like to be more accurate. However this is not really sourced either in the image description or in any of the articles I've looked at. If it is true, I think the main page should revert to the newer image but I'm reluctant to request that until it's clear the child image is likely to be the more accurate one Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

stock images that just prettify the page without illustrating article content are unencyclopedic. This is exactly the case with the images we are looking at here. So far, there is no connection between the genome project and the reconstruction of Neanderthal phenotypes as the images imply there is (also compare the extremely naive edit summary quoted above, I like this pic much better, just don't trust the far too sapiens looking child Neanderthal -- what the hell does gut feeling on how Neanderthals "should" look relate to the topic of this article? At all?). In this sense, they are not only unencyclopedic, they are positively misleading. The burden of establishing relevance lies with those wishing to include an image. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

...So now we have no picture of a neanderthal at all, on an article about them. we have a nice picture of a building, & some lab-scientist guy. how cool is that!?

the purpose of wikipedia is to make knowledge accessible to everyone. the purpose of the pictures is to provide an illustration of the subjects under discussion.

i can understand your concerns about the possibility of confusion about the image being derived from the project's work, & it is legitimate to not want to mis-represent that. but, every other news & info article dealing with this subject, on every other site, would carry a picture of a neanderthal. go look on the bbc.

if we want to split hairs, i nominate the picture of the building for removal too; i could argue that this article is about the genome project, NOT the max planck institute, nor this particular building which they make use of. we have no indication that any of the work was actually carried out in the bldg, & it could be misleading to include this picture if none of the actual gene-sequencing & analysis was done there. there are no other grounds for including this photograph of a piece of architecture in the article, therefore it should go

i'm sorry, i would like to resolve this reasonably, but unilaterally removing the picture, while an open discussion is underway, & no consensus has been reached, is not a satisfactory solution to the matter.

Lx 121 (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC) revisedLx 121 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat that some case needs to be made claiming relevance of the image to the article topic. You haven't even tried to build such a case. Please avoid discussion of procedure along the lines of "unilateral" and "discussion underway" and "consensus" as long as one side of the "dispute" (yours) hasn't even begun making any kind of argument. Wikipedia isn't a news site, blog or similar journalistic enterprise. Yes, these slap stock images on every article. We don't. See WP:NOT. Be my guest and remove the image of the building: it's not like it adds encyclopedic value. But I can live with it because at least it isn't open to misinterpretation. --dab (𒁳) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

you are the only person in this discussion who objects to the picture. you are acting unilaterally, without any semblance of consensus. an admin should know better. i have offered to be reasonable. if you want an edit war, you got it

Rationale: the article is about neanderthals, any reasonable person would reasonably expect to find a picture of a neanderthal on an article page dealing with them. you write an article about cars, you put a picture of a car on the page. you write an article about neanderthals, you put a picture of a neanderthal on the page. how hard is that to understand? how unreasonable is that?

Lx 121 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

you also tried to destroy the other work that i & several other people have done on this page. you are behaving inappropriately for a person with admin powers. perhaps you should read wp:not yourself, the opening line about "mutual respect" comes to mind. so does the part about collaborative effort.

Lx 121 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take this Wiki stuff so personally. He is just trying to keep this a serious encyclopedia. Personally, I agree with his argument: the current caption almost has to apologize for being there. On the other hand, I don't feel strongly about this, just remember: nothing you put up there will make the body of the text any more accessible to most of us! Is this dispute really worth it? Peace, Vesal (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with dab somewhat. Random neanderthal stock pictures should be kept to minimum. I think that at least one neanderthal picture is justifiable though. This picture shoudl be something immediately recognisable as a neanderthal and the older red-faced reconstruction fits that better. (The red-face looks to me like sunburn, which would be expected, no SPF 15+).--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that one pic is all we need; there was a debate earlier about which pic it should be, the decision ended up being: use both to avoid a fight. at the time, i annotated the caption on the second picture to explain the radical difference in neanderthal appearance between the 2 images. personally i don't favour the redfaced one, it's an older reconstruction; ideas about neanderthal appearance (& etc.) have moved on since then. also, it's inferior work; the hair & skin don't look as real, & there is no explanation provided for why his face (& only his face) is that colour (lol @ no spf: the earth still had a fully intact ozone layer back then). i also think it's also a bit dehumanizing; it looks like an old natn'l geo "native tribe" picture from about 50 years ago. i wouldn't vote for image deletion on it, but it's not the best image we could use. There is a wide range of [neanderthal material] on wikimedia commons. i'm open to swapping the one image we're using now for anything decent. i think a reconstruction is probably better than a skeleton/skull; it gives a better sense of the living creature. but anything that's a good fit with the subject matter will do. RE: weasel words in caption; added those in an attempt to make peace here & address dab's concerns, open to improved wording. RE: not taking it personally, i'm trying. Finally, does anyone object to restoring the image of the one research team leader (svannte paabo)? i'm not clear why it was removed; we don't have a great deal of media to use on this article right now, & that picture at least wasn't being challenged, as far as i know. it seems silly to just have a picture of a building. will restore paabo in 24 hours if nobody objects... Lx 121 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not too happy about the tone of user:dab in this discussion. I would like to see a source for the claim that the reconstruction of the adult male Neanderthal relies on outdated knowledge. The file info on Commons says that it was taken at the Neandertal Museum, who are presumably not dilettantes, and uploaded in 2007. The pic of the child Neanderthal is laughably false in my opinion because this could, by the looks of it, be an h. sapiens child. Indeed, if you gave the kid a hair cut and dressed him in a T shirt,, jeans and sneakers most people would never no one would ever guess that they are looking at a Neanderthal. This is so wrong. Neanderthal man not only had different DNA but – and this is not controversial – very different anatomy, especially but not only the huge nose and the barrel-shaped upper body, powerful build and bone structure, limited spinal flex etc. The reconstruction of the adult Neanderthal is successful because it shows a human who is close enough to the farthest outliers among h.sapiens in terms of physical appearance to get across that they too were homo, but equally clearly outside of the range of h. sapiens variability. This is important because a lot of people wonder, well who could you put in a loincloth with a club in his hand and they could pass as Neanderthal — Silvester Stallone, Lee Trevino, Tank Abbott, Andre the Giant? The answer is, none of them, no sapiens could be mistaken for a Neanderthal and vice versa. So, either put back the adult pic or take both of 'em out.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Goodmorningworld, it is irrelevant whether the reconstruction is outdated. I don't know whether it is. The point is that the reconstruction is based on fossils, while this is the article on the Neanderthal genome analysis. So why on earth would we need a picture of such a reconstruction? I do not think you have a lot of background knowledge in this if you think "laughable" the proposition that a Neanderthal might pass for a H. sapiens based on phenotype: this happens to be a rather mainstream assumption. I also would be interested whence you derive your knowledge of Neanderthal nose size. Maybe you want to start reading and stop basing your arguments on your preconceptions aolone? --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

dab, what is your problem? You come across as someone with frayed nerves and a big chip on the shoulder. If you read this thread, then you would know what my question referred to, namely the comment by Lx 121: "personally i don't favour the redfaced one, it's an older reconstruction; ideas about neanderthal appearance (& etc.) have moved on since then. also, it's inferior work; the hair & skin don't look as real, & there is no explanation provided for why his face (& only his face) is that colour (lol @ no spf: the earth still had a fully intact ozone layer back then)." I repeat my question for a source of the claim that ideas about appearance have moved on since then. And you, dab, please provide me with a source for the "mainstream assumption" that "a Neanderthal might pass for a H. sapiens based on phenotype". I was not entirely correct to say that their nose was huge, I should have said that due to the unique shape of the Neanderthal skull (not found in the sapiens phenotype) the nose appears huge. See this 2006 interview Template:De icon with the two experts who created this particular reconstruction of the adult male Neanderthal. As they based their reconstruction on the best available scientific knowledge and this was only three years ago, I find it difficult to believe that "ideas about appearance" have moved on. Again, I can live with no Neanderthal pix at all in this article, but the kid alone is not O.K.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, another long post, at least it's only once a day.

1. since nobody has objected, i'm going to put paabo back. if it becomes an issue we can sort that out too.

2. i didn't say that the red-face pic was outdated, simply that it was (or if you prefer, "appeared to be") based on older ideas.

in very broad, general terms, our concepts of early man have tended evolve from brutish creatures "cavemen" (& women), to beings rather more like ourselves; not as hairy, not as ape-like, and with a more highly developed culture. a similar tend can be found in our views on dinosauria; huge, lumbering, brutish, giant cold-blooded lizards have become warm blooded, swift, agile & more bird-like (also perhaps a bit less "stupid"). it is now generally accepted that neanderthals had at least some types of art/decoration & music as a part of their culture. personally, i think our depictions of them are still a bit off, at least in that i suspect our predecessors were rather less unkempt; grooming is an innate behavior in our species. i don't think the average neaderthal looked like they had just stepped out of a hair salon, but i don't think their entire existence was an unending series of bad hair days either. (:P) they would almost certainly have combed their hair; a better question would be "did they use tools (& etc.) for grooming, or just their hands (& ad hoc)?"

re: red faced man. i've looked thru the links & waded thru the german. i want to partially retract & modify my objections. this reconstruction still appears to be less recent than the child (but not by as much as i had thought) & as i understand it, he is a general-type reconstruction, not a forensic recreation of a specific individual. the work is also a bit less skillful than the child; see especially the hair & to some degree skin tone/texture. he looks more like a museum display, less like a living person. that said, the work is better than i thought at first glance. if you reference the pics in the article goodmorningworld linked to, our subject looks far better in those photos than he does in the one on wiki. for one thing, his skin colour looks more natural (although i'm still not clear on why his face is so much darker than the rest of his body). it seems the colours in our wikipic are a bit off. can anybody correct that? his face is NOT supposed to be bright red, it should be more of a deep-copper tan.

3. pending colour-correction on our red-faced gentleman, i would like to nominate this pic from wikimedia commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eyzies-mus%C3%A9e-La_Ferrassie.jpg for the article; as an alternative. he looks more "neanderthalish" than the kid, but more lifelike than the red man (& he is apparently a reconstruction of a specific individual skeleton). i'm open to other suggestions, as always.

Lx 121 (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Red faced man is a museum display. But I can see your point now it is more explained. I thought your objection was because his face was red (I think the brightness is possibly an artifact, either from the paintwork or the camerawork). I think looking through the commons : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eyzies-mus%C3%A9e-La_Ferrassie.jpg is a good representation that will be recognisable as neanderthal (I see you agree).

A picture of a neanderthal reconstruction is relevant, even on a page dealing with a genome because the genome belongs to this creature, and therefore can be represented through its phenotype (which will affect its appearance). Illustrations are an important way of passing knowledge, and for someone who may not know what a neanderthal is ... well a picture speaks a thousand words.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it without the picture, what picture could be in should go to show mdna derived evidence of physical traits, evidence wich is apparently minor, (the article mentions hardly any). The these guys are DIFFERENT comment is annoying and a very useless motivation , i wonder it is creationist or racist. In any case i consider it unscientific. a note on that, human genome diverges less from chimpansee's then the article mentions and as such the differences between neanderthal and human genome also appear exagerated to confirm a 'scientific' bias.24.132.170.97 (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Research groups and results

I do not know much about this (I just followed the link from the main page) and the article is very confusing. In particular, please could someone edit it to explain how the results announced in 2009 relate to the earlier work (for example, do they address the criticism of 2007) and how the different groups relate to one another. As it is, there appear to be six rival groups:

• The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
• 454 Life Sciences
• Green et al.
• Noonan et al.
• a research team led by Svante Pääbo
• Wall and Kim.

JonH (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The article still suffers from the after-effects of the attention it received a year ago or so from an editor with a racial mysticist agenda, specifically (for some weird reason) trying to insinuate the Dutch are descended from the Neanderthals. It needs expert attention. But even for experts, it will be difficult to say anything definite, because this is all still very much up in the air. But I definitely agree we should focus on the hard content instead of being distracted by red herrings like tenuously related stock imagery. --dab (𒁳) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"tenuously related stock imagery" is not the topic of this discussion, see above Lx 121 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed it was. If you concentrate very hard and re-read my comment, it will dawn on you that I described that discussion as a "red herring". --dab (𒁳) 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

long term planning for this article

i'm wondering if we should consider merging this piece into the general article about neanderthals, or perhaps morphing it into a page about the neanderthal genome in general?

there doesn't seem to be a single organized "project" here; rather competing teams, and conflicting views, with multiple analyses being made from the data. also, i'm sure there are other people working on neanderthal dna; and the story will change/progress over time.

what about a grouping of articles covering the genome of hominids, primates, etc.? or perhaps integrating that into the info-structure dealing with these species that already exists on wikip?

Lx 121 (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this should not be called the longterm planning of using human genomes in bacteria under the pretext it is fossil material only.24.132.170.97 (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I've added an expert review needed template and a lot of clarifyme tags with details of some of what I think needs explaining inside the template call's parameters. 84user (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the expert reviewer, here are the notes shown in bold from the article page's clarifyme tags for sections Project results and Criticism.

Project results

...

In 2006, Richard Green's team had used a then new sequencing technique developed by 454 Life Sciences that amplifies single molecules for characterization and obtained over a quarter-million unique short sequences ("reads"). The technique delivers randomly located reads, so that sequences of interest, e.g. genes that differ between modern humans and Neanderthals, show up at random as well. However, this form of direct sequencing destroys the original sample so to obtain new reads more sample must be destructively sequenced. In principle, the different, metagenomic library approach by Rubin, Noonan and others produces a clone of the Neanderthal DNA forever, for future targeted research, thus avoiding the need to destroy more than one original sample.{{clarifyme|date=February 2009|expert review needed here, are preceeding sentences accurate?}}<!-- Not sure what that means to say -->

Noonan et al., led by Edward Rubin, used a different technique, one in which the Neanderthal DNA is inserted into bacteria, which make multiple copies of a single fragment. It is a slower technique{{clarifyme|date=February 2009|slower than what? direct sequencing used by Green or a third technique?}} and only 65,000 bases were sequenced, but the same DNA can be obtained from the bacteria as needed and thus allows for a higher degree of error correction. They demonstrated that Neanderthal genomic sequences can be recovered using a metagenomic library-based approach. All of the DNA in the sample is "immortalized" into metagenomic libraries. A DNA fragment is selected, then propagated in microbes. The Neanderthal DNA can be sequenced or specific sequences can be studied.{{clarifyme|date=February 2009|is "the whole Neanderthal DNA" meant here? Is this after propogation in microbes? Confusing!}}

...

Criticism

... skip three paragraphs I did not bother to read ...

The key assumption of Noonan et al. is that the 38,000 years of fossilisation suffered by the Neanderthal DNA should have the genome analysis focus on ancient DNA fragments of about 50 to 70 base pairs in length.{{clarifyme|date=February 2009|meaning? The analysis should have looked at 50 to 70 base pair-length fragments, but did not, because ... why? Is that the expected/observed length of fragments after 38000 years?}} Green et al. do not make such an assumption; they generalized towards the exclusion of modern human nuclear DNA contamination by finding little evidence of modern human DNA contamination.{{clarifyme|date=February 2009|meaning?}} Such mitochondrial DNA tends to remain preserved longer than nuclear DNA.

...

However, Wall and Kim noted a length dependence of the results, having the small fragments pointing to a divergence time{{clarifyme|date=February 2009|? Genetic divergence? Genetic drift? Something else?}} similar to the results of Noonan et al. and the large fragments much more similar on average to modern human DNA - even to the extent of indicating an estimated human-Neanderthal sequence divergence time that is less than the estimated divergence time of two extant members of one referenced population in West Africa.{{clarifyme|date=February 2009|where did this quote come from? Wall and Kim's paper? Not found in Green paper nor in Lynn Yarris article. Needs to be a full citation.}}<ref>"...the large fragments are much more similar on average to modern human DNA. In fact, the large fragments have an estimated human–Neanderthal sequence divergence time that is less than the estimated divergence time between two [[Hausa people|Hausa]] (West African) sequences (see Materials and Methods). If true, this would indicate greater similarity between human and Neanderthal than between two extant members of the Hausa population."</ref>

84user (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay this bit is new to me. thx. Yet i am interested if the point can be made to proof when the what is called in the article 'neanderthal mdna' evolved.(mdna mutations are singular events, happening in 1 woman/baby only for starters)24.132.170.97 (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

lactose intolerance

the remark is not complete. modern humans have a common lactose intolerance, that has been researched to have taken up to 10000 years to change. So i think neanderthalers raising no cattle having the same is all but a surprise. There are probably more acquired traits like that plenty. For example the infamous maize calcium depletion, or the reaction to penicilines. What i think is the remark is worth making as long as it is pointed out that it is no surprise and consistent with "modern" human genome.24.132.170.97 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)